Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1731 | control, N = 861 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 171 | 50.87 ± 12.58 (25 - 75) | 51.09 ± 12.74 (25 - 75) | 50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73) | 0.818 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 173 | 0.679 | |||
f | 137 (79%) | 67 (78%) | 70 (80%) | ||
m | 36 (21%) | 19 (22%) | 17 (20%) | ||
occupation | 173 | 0.923 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
full_time | 21 (12%) | 11 (13%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 18 (10%) | 8 (9.3%) | 10 (11%) | ||
other | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (19%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (25%) | 21 (24%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.0%) | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (24%) | 23 (27%) | 19 (22%) | ||
marital | 173 | 0.966 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 8 (9.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
married | 53 (31%) | 25 (29%) | 28 (32%) | ||
none | 83 (48%) | 41 (48%) | 42 (48%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 10 (5.8%) | 5 (5.8%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 173 | 0.347 | |||
bachelor | 39 (23%) | 15 (17%) | 24 (28%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (24%) | 11 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.9%) | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.7%) | 8 (9.3%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
primary | 12 (6.9%) | 5 (5.8%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 19 (11%) | 10 (12%) | 9 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 42 (24%) | 19 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 9 (5.2%) | 4 (4.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
fam_income | 173 | 0.748 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.5%) | 2 (2.3%) | 4 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.8%) | 4 (4.7%) | 6 (6.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.6%) | 3 (3.5%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.6%) | 6 (7.0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 32 (18%) | 19 (22%) | 13 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (14%) | 13 (15%) | 11 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (11%) | 7 (8.1%) | 12 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 16 (9.2%) | 9 (10%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (8.1%) | 7 (8.1%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 32 (18%) | 14 (16%) | 18 (21%) | ||
medication | 173 | 154 (89%) | 76 (88%) | 78 (90%) | 0.787 |
onset_duration | 170 | 15.50 ± 10.42 (0 - 56) | 15.98 ± 11.40 (0 - 56) | 15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35) | 0.544 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 168 | 35.55 ± 13.49 (10 - 65) | 34.98 ± 12.19 (10 - 61) | 36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65) | 0.583 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1731 | control, N = 861 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 173 | 3.10 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.699 |
recovery_stage_b | 173 | 17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 17.92 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24) | 0.653 |
ras_confidence | 173 | 29.76 ± 5.27 (14 - 45) | 29.37 ± 5.16 (14 - 40) | 30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45) | 0.341 |
ras_willingness | 173 | 11.78 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.71 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.647 |
ras_goal | 173 | 17.42 ± 3.13 (7 - 25) | 17.16 ± 3.03 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25) | 0.291 |
ras_reliance | 173 | 13.31 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 13.08 ± 2.82 (5 - 18) | 13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20) | 0.299 |
ras_domination | 173 | 9.77 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.50 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 0.322 |
symptom | 173 | 29.94 ± 9.10 (14 - 56) | 30.08 ± 9.46 (14 - 55) | 29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56) | 0.842 |
slof_work | 173 | 22.33 ± 4.77 (10 - 30) | 22.55 ± 4.39 (12 - 30) | 22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30) | 0.554 |
slof_relationship | 173 | 25.31 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 24.98 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35) | 0.460 |
satisfaction | 173 | 20.38 ± 7.12 (5 - 35) | 19.56 ± 6.97 (5 - 33) | 21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 0.134 |
mhc_emotional | 173 | 10.76 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.51 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 0.383 |
mhc_social | 173 | 14.97 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 14.78 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29) | 0.653 |
mhc_psychological | 173 | 21.67 ± 6.43 (6 - 36) | 21.45 ± 6.27 (7 - 36) | 21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36) | 0.660 |
resilisnce | 173 | 16.35 ± 4.69 (6 - 30) | 15.78 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30) | 0.113 |
social_provision | 173 | 13.51 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.12 ± 2.68 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.073 |
els_value_living | 173 | 16.94 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.66 ± 3.05 (6 - 22) | 17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.261 |
els_life_fulfill | 173 | 12.70 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.23 ± 3.32 (5 - 19) | 13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20) | 0.071 |
els | 173 | 29.64 ± 6.00 (9 - 45) | 28.90 ± 5.76 (11 - 39) | 30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45) | 0.107 |
social_connect | 173 | 26.59 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 27.08 ± 8.95 (8 - 48) | 26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48) | 0.490 |
shs_agency | 173 | 14.29 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.77 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24) | 0.183 |
shs_pathway | 173 | 15.95 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 15.41 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.091 |
shs | 173 | 30.24 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.58 (6 - 45) | 31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.119 |
esteem | 173 | 12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.63 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20) | 0.976 |
mlq_search | 173 | 14.87 ± 3.59 (3 - 21) | 14.50 ± 3.61 (4 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 173 | 13.34 ± 4.43 (3 - 21) | 13.20 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.686 |
mlq | 173 | 28.20 ± 7.14 (6 - 42) | 27.70 ± 6.84 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42) | 0.357 |
empower | 173 | 19.13 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.71 ± 4.17 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30) | 0.202 |
ismi_resistance | 173 | 14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.41 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.991 |
ismi_discrimation | 173 | 11.65 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.83 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.462 |
sss_affective | 173 | 10.22 ± 3.64 (3 - 18) | 10.14 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.774 |
sss_behavior | 173 | 9.90 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 9.99 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.764 |
sss_cognitive | 173 | 8.43 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 8.36 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.798 |
sss | 173 | 28.55 ± 10.33 (9 - 54) | 28.49 ± 10.18 (9 - 54) | 28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54) | 0.933 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.127 | 2.89, 3.39 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.071 | 0.179 | -0.422, 0.281 | 0.694 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.175 | 0.193 | -0.204, 0.554 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.328 | 0.279 | -0.219, 0.876 | 0.242 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.311 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.194 | 0.438 | -1.05, 0.665 | 0.658 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.215 | 0.419 | -1.04, 0.605 | 0.608 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.825 | 0.605 | -0.361, 2.01 | 0.176 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.565 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.766 | 0.797 | -0.796, 2.33 | 0.338 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.28 | 0.579 | 0.144, 2.41 | 0.030 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.532 | 0.839 | -1.11, 2.18 | 0.528 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.217 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.141 | 0.305 | -0.457, 0.740 | 0.644 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.127 | 0.247 | -0.612, 0.358 | 0.608 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 0.358 | -0.232, 1.17 | 0.193 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.341 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.504 | 0.481 | -0.439, 1.45 | 0.296 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.291 | 0.410 | -0.512, 1.09 | 0.479 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.404 | 0.593 | -0.758, 1.57 | 0.497 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.313 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.459 | 0.442 | -0.408, 1.33 | 0.301 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.412 | 0.354 | -0.282, 1.11 | 0.248 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.336 | 0.513 | -0.669, 1.34 | 0.514 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.255 | 9.45, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.367 | 0.360 | -1.07, 0.339 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.108 | 0.326 | -0.748, 0.532 | 0.741 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.20 | 0.472 | 0.274, 2.13 | 0.013 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 0.979 | 28.2, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.277 | 1.381 | -2.98, 2.43 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.27 | 0.863 | -2.96, 0.422 | 0.145 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.351 | 1.251 | -2.80, 2.10 | 0.780 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.514 | 21.5, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.432 | 0.725 | -1.85, 0.988 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.103 | 0.538 | -1.16, 0.951 | 0.848 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.424 | 0.779 | -1.10, 1.95 | 0.588 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.630 | 23.7, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.667 | 0.889 | -1.07, 2.41 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.456 | 0.678 | -1.79, 0.872 | 0.502 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.793 | 0.982 | -1.13, 2.72 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.768 | 18.1, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.63 | 1.083 | -0.497, 3.75 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.831 | 0.760 | -0.658, 2.32 | 0.277 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.670 | 1.101 | -1.49, 2.83 | 0.544 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.402 | 9.72, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 0.567 | -0.612, 1.61 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.490 | 0.392 | -0.278, 1.26 | 0.215 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.370 | 0.568 | -1.48, 0.743 | 0.516 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.620 | 13.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.382 | 0.875 | -1.33, 2.10 | 0.663 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.857 | 0.680 | -0.475, 2.19 | 0.211 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.168 | 0.985 | -2.10, 1.76 | 0.865 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.710 | 20.1, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.432 | 1.001 | -1.53, 2.39 | 0.667 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.767 | -0.350, 2.66 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.384 | 1.111 | -2.56, 1.79 | 0.730 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.493 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.13 | 0.695 | -0.232, 2.49 | 0.106 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.794 | 0.564 | -0.310, 1.90 | 0.162 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.986 | 0.816 | -0.613, 2.59 | 0.230 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.306 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.780 | 0.432 | -0.067, 1.63 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.454 | 0.354 | -1.15, 0.240 | 0.203 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.747 | 0.513 | -0.257, 1.75 | 0.148 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.345 | 16.0, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.544 | 0.486 | -0.409, 1.50 | 0.265 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.304 | 0.371 | -0.424, 1.03 | 0.416 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.215 | 0.538 | -0.839, 1.27 | 0.690 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.356 | 11.5, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.928 | 0.501 | -0.054, 1.91 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.531 | 0.341 | -0.138, 1.20 | 0.123 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.096 | 0.495 | -1.07, 0.873 | 0.846 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.645 | 27.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 0.910 | -0.310, 3.26 | 0.107 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.861 | 0.591 | -0.297, 2.02 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.012 | 0.856 | -1.67, 1.69 | 0.989 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.1 | 1.008 | 25.1, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.978 | 1.421 | -3.76, 1.81 | 0.492 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.207 | 0.960 | -2.09, 1.67 | 0.830 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.45 | 1.391 | -5.18, 0.274 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.547 | 12.7, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.771 | -0.473, 2.55 | 0.180 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.400 | 0.538 | -0.654, 1.46 | 0.459 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.370 | 0.780 | -1.16, 1.90 | 0.636 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.440 | 14.5, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.620 | -0.140, 2.29 | 0.084 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.725 | 0.443 | -0.143, 1.59 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.515 | 0.641 | -1.77, 0.743 | 0.425 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.942 | 27.3, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.11 | 1.328 | -0.490, 4.72 | 0.113 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.913 | -0.669, 2.91 | 0.223 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.158 | 1.323 | -2.75, 2.43 | 0.905 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.161 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.007 | 0.227 | -0.452, 0.437 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.072 | 0.257 | -0.575, 0.432 | 0.781 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.097 | 0.371 | -0.629, 0.824 | 0.793 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.383 | 13.7, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.730 | 0.540 | -0.328, 1.79 | 0.178 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.754 | 0.454 | -0.136, 1.64 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.930 | 0.657 | -2.22, 0.357 | 0.160 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.473 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.274 | 0.667 | -1.03, 1.58 | 0.682 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.663 | 0.503 | -0.322, 1.65 | 0.191 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.244 | 0.728 | -1.67, 1.18 | 0.738 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.769 | 26.2, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.085 | -1.12, 3.13 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.40 | 0.836 | -0.235, 3.04 | 0.097 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 1.211 | -3.51, 1.23 | 0.349 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.464 | 17.8, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.842 | 0.654 | -0.440, 2.12 | 0.199 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.903 | 0.466 | -0.009, 1.82 | 0.056 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 0.675 | -2.44, 0.211 | 0.103 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.274 | 13.9, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.005 | 0.386 | -0.761, 0.752 | 0.990 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.052 | 0.347 | -0.628, 0.732 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.627 | 0.502 | -0.357, 1.61 | 0.215 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.337 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.343 | 0.475 | -1.27, 0.588 | 0.471 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.076 | 0.435 | -0.928, 0.775 | 0.861 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.511 | 0.629 | -1.74, 0.722 | 0.418 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.392 | 9.37, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.159 | 0.553 | -0.925, 1.24 | 0.774 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.095 | 0.391 | -0.862, 0.672 | 0.809 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.04 | 0.567 | -2.16, 0.067 | 0.069 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.403 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.172 | 0.569 | -1.29, 0.942 | 0.762 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.296 | 0.398 | -1.08, 0.484 | 0.459 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.366 | 0.577 | -1.50, 0.765 | 0.528 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.36 | 0.395 | 7.59, 9.13 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.557 | -0.946, 1.24 | 0.794 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.029 | 0.432 | -0.877, 0.818 | 0.946 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.940 | 0.626 | -2.17, 0.287 | 0.137 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 1.109 | 26.3, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.132 | 1.563 | -2.93, 3.20 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.471 | 1.020 | -2.47, 1.53 | 0.645 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.15 | 1.479 | -5.04, 0.753 | 0.150 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(245) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(245) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.55], t(245) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.88], t(245) = 1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.31, 18.53], t(245) = 57.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.66], t(245) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.61], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.01], t(245) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.37 (95% CI [28.26, 30.48], t(245) = 51.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.33], t(245) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.14, 2.41], t(245) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.18], t(245) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.71 (95% CI [11.28, 12.13], t(245) = 54.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.74], t(245) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.36], t(245) = -0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.17], t(245) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.49, 17.83], t(245) = 50.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.45], t(245) = 1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.09], t(245) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.57], t(245) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.70], t(245) = 41.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.33], t(245) = 1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.11], t(245) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.34], t(245) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.45, 10.45], t(245) = 38.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.34], t(245) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.53], t(245) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.27, 2.13], t(245) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.12, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.08 (95% CI [28.16, 32.00], t(245) = 30.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 2.43], t(245) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.42], t(245) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.80, 2.10], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.55 (95% CI [21.54, 23.55], t(245) = 43.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.99], t(245) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.95], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.95], t(245) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.98 (95% CI [23.74, 26.21], t(245) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.41], t(245) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.87], t(245) = -0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.72], t(245) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.56 (95% CI [18.05, 21.06], t(245) = 25.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.75], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.32], t(245) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.83], t(245) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.72, 11.30], t(245) = 26.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.61], t(245) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.26], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.74], t(245) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.56, 15.99], t(245) = 23.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.10], t(245) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.19], t(245) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.76], t(245) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.45 (95% CI [20.06, 22.84], t(245) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.39], t(245) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.66], t(245) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.79], t(245) = -0.35, p = 0.729; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.78 (95% CI [14.81, 16.74], t(245) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.49], t(245) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(245) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.59], t(245) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.52, 13.72], t(245) = 42.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.63], t(245) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.24], t(245) = -1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.75], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.99, 17.34], t(245) = 48.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.50], t(245) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.03], t(245) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.27], t(245) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.54, 12.93], t(245) = 34.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.91], t(245) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.20], t(245) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.87], t(245) = -0.19, p = 0.845; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.90 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(245) = 44.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.26], t(245) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(245) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.69], t(245) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.08 (95% CI [25.11, 29.06], t(245) = 26.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.81], t(245) = -0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.67], t(245) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-5.18, 0.27], t(245) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.77 (95% CI [12.70, 14.84], t(245) = 25.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.55], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(245) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.90], t(245) = 0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.54, 16.27], t(245) = 35.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.29], t(245) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.59], t(245) = 1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.74], t(245) = -0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.33, 31.02], t(245) = 30.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-0.49, 4.72], t(245) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.91], t(245) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.75, 2.43], t(245) = -0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.50e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.63 (95% CI [12.31, 12.94], t(245) = 78.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44], t(245) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.43], t(245) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.82], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.50 (95% CI [13.75, 15.25], t(245) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.79], t(245) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.64], t(245) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.36], t(245) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.27, 14.12], t(245) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.58], t(245) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(245) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.18], t(245) = -0.34, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.19, 29.21], t(245) = 36.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.13], t(245) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.04], t(245) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.51, 1.23], t(245) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.71 (95% CI [17.80, 19.62], t(245) = 40.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.12], t(245) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 1.82], t(245) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.24e-03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.21], t(245) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.94], t(245) = 52.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.75], t(245) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -1.84e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.73], t(245) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.61], t(245) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [11.17, 12.49], t(245) = 35.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.59], t(245) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.78], t(245) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.74, 0.72], t(245) = -0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.14 (95% CI [9.37, 10.91], t(245) = 25.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.24], t(245) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.67], t(245) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.07], t(245) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(245) = 24.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.94], t(245) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.48], t(245) = -0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.77], t(245) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.36 (95% CI [7.59, 9.13], t(245) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.24], t(245) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(245) = -0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.29], t(245) = -1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.49 (95% CI [26.32, 30.66], t(245) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.93, 3.20], t(245) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.47, 1.53], t(245) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.15, 95% CI [-5.04, 0.75], t(245) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 795.240 | 805.816 | -394.620 | 789.240 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 794.247 | 815.400 | -391.124 | 782.247 | 6.993 | 3 | 0.072 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,225.218 | 1,235.794 | -609.609 | 1,219.218 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,228.979 | 1,250.132 | -608.489 | 1,216.979 | 2.239 | 3 | 0.524 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,500.788 | 1,511.364 | -747.394 | 1,494.788 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,492.282 | 1,513.435 | -740.141 | 1,480.282 | 14.506 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,022.771 | 1,033.347 | -508.385 | 1,016.771 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,025.969 | 1,047.122 | -506.985 | 1,013.969 | 2.801 | 3 | 0.423 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,259.720 | 1,270.296 | -626.860 | 1,253.720 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,260.871 | 1,282.024 | -624.436 | 1,248.871 | 4.849 | 3 | 0.183 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,210.978 | 1,221.555 | -602.489 | 1,204.978 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,210.090 | 1,231.243 | -599.045 | 1,198.090 | 6.888 | 3 | 0.076 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,127.813 | 1,138.390 | -560.907 | 1,121.813 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,123.864 | 1,145.016 | -555.932 | 1,111.864 | 9.950 | 3 | 0.019 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,745.639 | 1,756.215 | -869.820 | 1,739.639 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,746.306 | 1,767.459 | -867.153 | 1,734.306 | 5.333 | 3 | 0.149 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,442.065 | 1,452.641 | -718.032 | 1,436.065 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,447.474 | 1,468.626 | -717.737 | 1,435.474 | 0.591 | 3 | 0.898 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,549.591 | 1,560.167 | -771.795 | 1,543.591 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,553.874 | 1,575.027 | -770.937 | 1,541.874 | 1.717 | 3 | 0.633 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,642.805 | 1,653.381 | -818.402 | 1,636.805 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,641.252 | 1,662.405 | -814.626 | 1,629.252 | 7.553 | 3 | 0.056 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,310.527 | 1,321.103 | -652.264 | 1,304.527 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,314.318 | 1,335.471 | -651.159 | 1,302.318 | 2.209 | 3 | 0.530 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,545.205 | 1,555.782 | -769.603 | 1,539.205 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,548.516 | 1,569.668 | -768.258 | 1,536.516 | 2.690 | 3 | 0.442 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,611.341 | 1,621.918 | -802.671 | 1,605.341 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,614.044 | 1,635.196 | -801.022 | 1,602.044 | 3.298 | 3 | 0.348 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,447.585 | 1,458.162 | -720.793 | 1,441.585 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,438.721 | 1,459.874 | -713.360 | 1,426.721 | 14.865 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,203.462 | 1,214.038 | -598.731 | 1,197.462 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,201.716 | 1,222.868 | -594.858 | 1,189.716 | 7.746 | 3 | 0.052 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,249.491 | 1,260.068 | -621.746 | 1,243.491 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,251.456 | 1,272.609 | -619.728 | 1,239.456 | 4.035 | 3 | 0.258 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,251.530 | 1,262.106 | -622.765 | 1,245.530 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,250.258 | 1,271.411 | -619.129 | 1,238.258 | 7.272 | 3 | 0.064 |
els | null | 3 | 1,543.185 | 1,553.761 | -768.592 | 1,537.185 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,542.369 | 1,563.522 | -765.185 | 1,530.369 | 6.816 | 3 | 0.078 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,774.229 | 1,784.805 | -884.114 | 1,768.229 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,772.029 | 1,793.182 | -880.015 | 1,760.029 | 8.200 | 3 | 0.042 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,468.432 | 1,479.008 | -731.216 | 1,462.432 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,469.770 | 1,490.923 | -728.885 | 1,457.770 | 4.661 | 3 | 0.198 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,363.217 | 1,373.794 | -678.609 | 1,357.217 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,363.860 | 1,385.013 | -675.930 | 1,351.860 | 5.358 | 3 | 0.147 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,739.754 | 1,750.330 | -866.877 | 1,733.754 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,740.686 | 1,761.839 | -864.343 | 1,728.686 | 5.068 | 3 | 0.167 |
esteem | null | 3 | 910.195 | 920.772 | -452.098 | 904.195 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 916.097 | 937.249 | -452.048 | 904.097 | 0.099 | 3 | 0.992 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,314.661 | 1,325.237 | -654.330 | 1,308.661 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,316.825 | 1,337.978 | -652.412 | 1,304.825 | 3.836 | 3 | 0.280 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,404.688 | 1,415.264 | -699.344 | 1,398.688 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,408.191 | 1,429.344 | -698.096 | 1,396.191 | 2.497 | 3 | 0.476 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,652.722 | 1,663.299 | -823.361 | 1,646.722 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,655.329 | 1,676.482 | -821.665 | 1,643.329 | 3.393 | 3 | 0.335 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,389.075 | 1,399.652 | -691.538 | 1,383.075 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,390.323 | 1,411.476 | -689.162 | 1,378.323 | 4.752 | 3 | 0.191 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,155.129 | 1,165.705 | -574.564 | 1,149.129 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,157.435 | 1,178.588 | -572.718 | 1,145.435 | 3.694 | 3 | 0.297 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,260.611 | 1,271.187 | -627.305 | 1,254.611 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,263.881 | 1,285.034 | -625.940 | 1,251.881 | 2.730 | 3 | 0.435 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,307.094 | 1,317.670 | -650.547 | 1,301.094 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,305.328 | 1,326.481 | -646.664 | 1,293.328 | 7.766 | 3 | 0.051 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,314.885 | 1,325.461 | -654.443 | 1,308.885 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,317.585 | 1,338.738 | -652.792 | 1,305.585 | 3.300 | 3 | 0.348 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,320.308 | 1,330.884 | -657.154 | 1,314.308 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,321.674 | 1,342.827 | -654.837 | 1,309.674 | 4.633 | 3 | 0.201 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,815.201 | 1,825.777 | -904.601 | 1,809.201 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,814.946 | 1,836.098 | -901.473 | 1,802.946 | 6.255 | 3 | 0.100 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 86 | 3.14 ± 1.18 | 87 | 3.07 ± 1.18 | 0.694 | 0.073 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 41 | 3.31 ± 1.15 | -0.182 | 37 | 3.57 ± 1.15 | -0.522 | 0.324 | -0.267 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 86 | 17.92 ± 2.88 | 87 | 17.72 ± 2.88 | 0.658 | 0.096 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 41 | 17.70 ± 2.70 | 0.106 | 37 | 18.33 ± 2.68 | -0.300 | 0.301 | -0.310 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 86 | 29.37 ± 5.24 | 87 | 30.14 ± 5.24 | 0.338 | -0.282 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 41 | 30.65 ± 4.46 | -0.470 | 37 | 31.95 ± 4.37 | -0.666 | 0.196 | -0.477 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 86 | 11.71 ± 2.01 | 87 | 11.85 ± 2.01 | 0.644 | -0.120 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 41 | 11.58 ± 1.77 | 0.108 | 37 | 12.19 ± 1.75 | -0.292 | 0.126 | -0.521 |
ras_goal | 1st | 86 | 17.16 ± 3.16 | 87 | 17.67 ± 3.16 | 0.296 | -0.258 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 41 | 17.45 ± 2.84 | -0.149 | 37 | 18.36 ± 2.80 | -0.356 | 0.157 | -0.465 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 86 | 13.08 ± 2.91 | 87 | 13.54 ± 2.91 | 0.301 | -0.274 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 41 | 13.49 ± 2.55 | -0.246 | 37 | 14.29 ± 2.51 | -0.446 | 0.168 | -0.474 |
ras_domination | 1st | 86 | 9.95 ± 2.37 | 87 | 9.59 ± 2.37 | 0.309 | 0.234 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 41 | 9.85 ± 2.17 | 0.069 | 37 | 10.68 ± 2.15 | -0.695 | 0.091 | -0.530 |
symptom | 1st | 86 | 30.08 ± 9.08 | 87 | 29.80 ± 9.08 | 0.841 | 0.069 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 41 | 28.81 ± 7.39 | 0.316 | 37 | 28.18 ± 7.20 | 0.404 | 0.705 | 0.157 |
slof_work | 1st | 86 | 22.55 ± 4.76 | 87 | 22.11 ± 4.76 | 0.552 | 0.171 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 41 | 22.44 ± 4.08 | 0.041 | 37 | 22.44 ± 4.01 | -0.127 | 0.993 | 0.003 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 86 | 24.98 ± 5.84 | 87 | 25.64 ± 5.84 | 0.454 | -0.209 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 41 | 24.52 ± 5.05 | 0.143 | 37 | 25.98 ± 4.96 | -0.105 | 0.199 | -0.457 |
satisfaction | 1st | 86 | 19.56 ± 7.12 | 87 | 21.18 ± 7.12 | 0.135 | -0.457 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 41 | 20.39 ± 5.99 | -0.233 | 37 | 22.68 ± 5.87 | -0.422 | 0.089 | -0.645 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 86 | 10.51 ± 3.73 | 87 | 11.01 ± 3.73 | 0.379 | -0.273 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 41 | 11.00 ± 3.12 | -0.267 | 37 | 11.13 ± 3.06 | -0.065 | 0.853 | -0.071 |
mhc_social | 1st | 86 | 14.78 ± 5.75 | 87 | 15.16 ± 5.75 | 0.663 | -0.119 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 41 | 15.64 ± 5.00 | -0.267 | 37 | 15.85 ± 4.92 | -0.215 | 0.849 | -0.067 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 86 | 21.45 ± 6.58 | 87 | 21.89 ± 6.58 | 0.667 | -0.119 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 41 | 22.61 ± 5.69 | -0.319 | 37 | 22.65 ± 5.60 | -0.213 | 0.970 | -0.013 |
resilisnce | 1st | 86 | 15.78 ± 4.57 | 87 | 16.91 ± 4.57 | 0.106 | -0.422 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 41 | 16.57 ± 4.03 | -0.297 | 37 | 18.69 ± 3.97 | -0.666 | 0.020 | -0.791 |
social_provision | 1st | 86 | 13.12 ± 2.84 | 87 | 13.90 ± 2.84 | 0.072 | -0.464 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 41 | 12.66 ± 2.51 | 0.270 | 37 | 14.19 ± 2.48 | -0.174 | 0.007 | -0.908 |
els_value_living | 1st | 86 | 16.66 ± 3.20 | 87 | 17.21 ± 3.20 | 0.265 | -0.311 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 41 | 16.97 ± 2.76 | -0.173 | 37 | 17.73 ± 2.72 | -0.296 | 0.223 | -0.434 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 86 | 12.23 ± 3.30 | 87 | 13.16 ± 3.30 | 0.066 | -0.582 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 41 | 12.76 ± 2.75 | -0.333 | 37 | 13.60 ± 2.69 | -0.273 | 0.178 | -0.522 |
els | 1st | 86 | 28.90 ± 5.98 | 87 | 30.37 ± 5.98 | 0.107 | -0.535 | ||
els | 2nd | 41 | 29.76 ± 4.92 | -0.313 | 37 | 31.24 ± 4.80 | -0.317 | 0.179 | -0.540 |
social_connect | 1st | 86 | 27.08 ± 9.34 | 87 | 26.10 ± 9.34 | 0.492 | 0.218 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 41 | 26.87 ± 7.77 | 0.046 | 37 | 23.44 ± 7.60 | 0.593 | 0.050 | 0.765 |
shs_agency | 1st | 86 | 13.77 ± 5.07 | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.07 | 0.180 | -0.412 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 41 | 14.17 ± 4.26 | -0.159 | 37 | 15.57 ± 4.17 | -0.306 | 0.142 | -0.559 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 86 | 15.41 ± 4.08 | 87 | 16.48 ± 4.08 | 0.084 | -0.518 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 41 | 16.13 ± 3.45 | -0.349 | 37 | 16.69 ± 3.38 | -0.101 | 0.469 | -0.270 |
shs | 1st | 86 | 29.17 ± 8.74 | 87 | 31.29 ± 8.74 | 0.113 | -0.495 | ||
shs | 2nd | 41 | 30.29 ± 7.30 | -0.262 | 37 | 32.25 ± 7.14 | -0.225 | 0.234 | -0.458 |
esteem | 1st | 86 | 12.63 ± 1.49 | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.49 | 0.975 | 0.006 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 41 | 12.56 ± 1.48 | 0.055 | 37 | 12.65 ± 1.48 | -0.020 | 0.788 | -0.069 |
mlq_search | 1st | 86 | 14.50 ± 3.55 | 87 | 15.23 ± 3.55 | 0.178 | -0.338 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 41 | 15.25 ± 3.17 | -0.349 | 37 | 15.05 ± 3.13 | 0.082 | 0.779 | 0.093 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 86 | 13.20 ± 4.39 | 87 | 13.47 ± 4.39 | 0.682 | -0.116 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 41 | 13.86 ± 3.77 | -0.280 | 37 | 13.89 ± 3.71 | -0.177 | 0.972 | -0.012 |
mlq | 1st | 86 | 27.70 ± 7.13 | 87 | 28.70 ± 7.13 | 0.356 | -0.254 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 41 | 29.10 ± 6.18 | -0.356 | 37 | 28.96 ± 6.08 | -0.067 | 0.921 | 0.035 |
empower | 1st | 86 | 18.71 ± 4.30 | 87 | 19.55 ± 4.30 | 0.199 | -0.386 | ||
empower | 2nd | 41 | 19.61 ± 3.64 | -0.414 | 37 | 19.34 ± 3.56 | 0.096 | 0.741 | 0.124 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 86 | 14.41 ± 2.54 | 87 | 14.40 ± 2.54 | 0.990 | 0.003 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 41 | 14.46 ± 2.32 | -0.031 | 37 | 15.08 ± 2.30 | -0.407 | 0.236 | -0.373 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 86 | 11.83 ± 3.12 | 87 | 11.48 ± 3.12 | 0.471 | 0.164 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 41 | 11.75 ± 2.88 | 0.037 | 37 | 10.90 ± 2.85 | 0.280 | 0.190 | 0.408 |
sss_affective | 1st | 86 | 10.14 ± 3.64 | 87 | 10.30 ± 3.64 | 0.774 | -0.087 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 41 | 10.04 ± 3.07 | 0.052 | 37 | 9.16 ± 3.01 | 0.621 | 0.200 | 0.483 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 86 | 9.99 ± 3.74 | 87 | 9.82 ± 3.74 | 0.762 | 0.092 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 41 | 9.69 ± 3.14 | 0.159 | 37 | 9.15 ± 3.08 | 0.355 | 0.446 | 0.289 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 86 | 8.36 ± 3.66 | 87 | 8.51 ± 3.66 | 0.794 | -0.071 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 41 | 8.33 ± 3.18 | 0.014 | 37 | 7.54 ± 3.13 | 0.475 | 0.268 | 0.389 |
sss | 1st | 86 | 28.49 ± 10.28 | 87 | 28.62 ± 10.28 | 0.933 | -0.028 | ||
sss | 2nd | 41 | 28.02 ± 8.47 | 0.099 | 37 | 26.00 ± 8.27 | 0.550 | 0.289 | 0.423 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(231.88) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)
2st
t(239.48) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.77)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(216.27) = -0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.67)
2st
t(236.76) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.83)
ras_confidence
1st
t(194.07) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)
2st
t(244.84) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.27)
ras_willingness
1st
t(201.05) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.74)
2st
t(240.97) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.40)
ras_goal
1st
t(205.00) = 1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.45)
2st
t(239.17) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.17)
ras_reliance
1st
t(200.20) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)
2st
t(241.41) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.93)
ras_domination
1st
t(210.71) = -1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.34)
2st
t(237.44) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.80)
symptom
1st
t(187.23) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.45)
2st
t(246.96) = -0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.63)
slof_work
1st
t(195.29) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.00)
2st
t(244.16) = -0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.80)
slof_relationship
1st
t(196.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.42)
2st
t(243.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.78 to 3.69)
satisfaction
1st
t(192.23) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.76)
2st
t(245.78) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.35 to 4.94)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(191.49) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.62)
2st
t(246.11) = 0.19, p = 0.853, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.51)
mhc_social
1st
t(198.14) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.11)
2st
t(242.54) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.43)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(197.22) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.40)
2st
t(243.06) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.57)
resilisnce
1st
t(201.16) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.50)
2st
t(240.92) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.33 to 3.90)
social_provision
1st
t(201.86) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.63)
2st
t(240.57) = 2.70, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.41 to 2.64)
els_value_living
1st
t(196.98) = 1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.50)
2st
t(243.20) = 1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.98)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(190.80) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.92)
2st
t(246.39) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.05)
els
1st
t(188.73) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.27)
2st
t(246.94) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 3.65)
social_connect
1st
t(190.44) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.82)
2st
t(246.52) = -1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-6.86 to -0.00)
shs_agency
1st
t(192.01) = 1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.56)
2st
t(245.88) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.29)
shs_pathway
1st
t(193.12) = 1.73, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.30)
2st
t(245.34) = 0.73, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.09)
shs
1st
t(191.22) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 4.73)
2st
t(246.23) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.27 to 5.18)
esteem
1st
t(238.67) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.44)
2st
t(242.36) = 0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.75)
mlq_search
1st
t(203.92) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.79)
2st
t(239.62) = -0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.21)
mlq_presence
1st
t(196.18) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.59)
2st
t(243.66) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.70)
mlq
1st
t(197.58) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.14 to 3.14)
2st
t(242.85) = -0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.60)
empower
1st
t(192.99) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.13)
2st
t(245.41) = -0.33, p = 0.741, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.34)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(209.85) = -0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.76)
2st
t(237.63) = 1.19, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.65)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(211.68) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.59)
2st
t(237.25) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.42)
sss_affective
1st
t(192.65) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)
2st
t(245.58) = -1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.47)
sss_behavior
1st
t(192.15) = -0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.95)
2st
t(245.82) = -0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.85)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(198.09) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.24)
2st
t(242.57) = -1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.61)
sss
1st
t(188.94) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.95 to 3.22)
2st
t(246.91) = -1.06, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-5.75 to 1.72)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(121.89) = 2.49, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.10 to 0.90)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(106.57) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.48)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(90.15) = 2.97, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.02)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(94.91) = 1.32, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.86)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(97.75) = 1.62, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.55)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(94.31) = 2.01, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.49)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(102.06) = 3.18, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(85.74) = -1.78, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.42 to 0.18)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(90.96) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.44)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(92.07) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.75)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(88.94) = 1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.09)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(88.46) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(92.89) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.11)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(92.26) = 0.95, p = 0.686, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.37)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(94.99) = 3.01, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.60 to 2.96)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(95.48) = 0.79, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.03)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(92.10) = 1.33, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.29)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(88.01) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.15)
els
1st vs 2st
t(86.68) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.11)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(87.78) = -2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.65)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(88.80) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.90)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(89.52) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.13)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(88.29) = 1.00, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(131.00) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.56)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(96.96) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.77)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(91.56) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.47)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(92.51) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.48 to 2.01)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(89.44) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.76)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(101.39) = 1.86, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.40)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(102.82) = -1.29, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.32)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(89.22) = -2.77, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-1.96 to -0.32)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(88.89) = -1.58, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.17)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(92.86) = -2.13, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.87 to -0.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(86.82) = -2.44, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.75 to -0.48)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(116.78) = 0.90, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.56)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(103.32) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.62)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(88.76) = 2.20, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.43)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(93.00) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.37)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(95.52) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.11)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(92.47) = 1.16, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(99.34) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.54)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(84.80) = -1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.45)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(89.48) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.97)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(90.47) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(87.67) = 1.09, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.34)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(87.24) = 1.25, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(91.20) = 1.26, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.21)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(90.64) = 1.50, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(93.07) = 1.40, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.92)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(93.51) = -1.28, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.25)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(90.50) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.04)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(86.84) = 1.55, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.21)
els
1st vs 2st
t(85.65) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(86.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.70)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(87.55) = 0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.47)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(88.20) = 1.63, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(87.09) = 1.22, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.94)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(124.76) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(94.82) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.66)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(90.01) = 1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(90.86) = 1.67, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.07)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(88.12) = 1.94, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.83)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(98.75) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.74)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(100.01) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.79)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(87.92) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.69)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(87.63) = -0.74, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(91.17) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.83)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(85.77) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.56)